Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Leelason Breweries Ltd. vs Sri Bheemi Reddy Lakshminarayana ... on 5 October, 2001
Equivalent citations: AIR2002AP253, 2002(2)ALD215, 2002(1)ALT361
ORDER D.S.R. Varma, J.
1. Since both the revision petitions arise out of the same suit and between the same parties, they are being disposed of by this common order.
C.R.P.No.1378/2001 is filed challenging the order dated 28.11.2000 passed by the court of Senior Civil Judge, Nellore in I.A.No.690/2000 in O.S.No.93/1989. By the said order, the court below, dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 32, Rule 15 read with Section 151 C.P.C. to permit one Uppalamarthi Venkata Ramana Reddy son of Sankara Reddy to act as guardian to the plaintiff, on the ground that the plaintiff has become infirm to prosecute the suit. Further, the court below while dismissing the I.A. observed that it is open for the wife of the plaintiff to apply to the court under Order 32, Rule 15 C.P.C. to appoint her as the guardian ad-litem to prosecute the suit. Aggrieved by this observation, the respondent - defendant had filed this revision petition.
2. After the disposal of the above I.A. with the observations as stated above, the wife of the plaintiff filed I.A.No.1209 of 2000 in O.S.No.93/1989 under Order 32, Rule 15 read with Section 151 C.P.C. to permit her to come on record as guardian of the plaintiff to prosecute the suit and the court below by order dated 18.1.200, allowed the application and permitted her to come on record as the guardian of the plaintiff to prosecute the suit. Aggrieved by this order, the respondent - defendant in the suit filed the other revision petition in C.R.P.No.1397 of 2001.
3. Since the latter revision petition is consequential to C.R.P.No.1398/2001, the discussion in this revision hold good for the two revision petitions and accordingly, I am referring to the impugned order in C.R.P.No.1398/2001.
4. Before referring to rival contentions, it is imperative to note few admitted facts on record.
Originally the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs.3,44,646/- being the balance amount payable to him by the respondent herein, as the commission in the transactions relating to sale of Khazuraho beer manufactured by the respondent and for refund of the deposited amount and for interest etc. The respondent filed the written statement denying all the allegations made by the plaintiff. After framing the issues by the court below, the plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and also cross-examined in part. Thereafter, as the counsel appearing for the respondent reported no instructions, the suit was decreed ex parte on 3.3.1994. Aggrieved by that order, the defendant in the suit filed C.M.A.No.393/1995 before this Court and this court by order dated 26.11.1997 allowed the appeal and ordered restoration of the suit and accordingly it was restored. At that state, I.A.No.1012/199 was filed on behalf of the plaintiff to implead the proposed guardian as the 2nd plaintiff in the suit and that application was allowed by order dated 20.12.1999 and the proposed guardian ad-litem was impleaded as 2nd plaintiff.Impugning this order, the respondent filed a revision petition before this Court in C.R.P.No.387/2000 and this court while setting aside the impugned order, directed the court below to conduct an enquiry under Order 32, Rule 15 C.P.C. and pursuance to the same the present I.A.No.690/2000 was filed.
5. In the present I.A., the proposed guardian was examined as P.W.1 and the doctor who issued Ex.A-1 medical certificate was examined as P.W.2.
When the plaintiff was produced before the Court, the learned Senior Civil Judge also examined him by posing some questions and elicited answers. Basing upon the said examination the learned Judge found that as on 19.9.2000, the plaintiff was apparently suffering from mental imbalance and infirmity who was unable to grasp and understand and not worldly wise.
6. Further as observed in the impugned order, the evidence of P.W.2 discloses that the plaintiff has been suffering from chronic mental illness-schozo affective disorder and further the plaintiff was dull, attention could not be aroused easily and it was not sustainable for a long interview. P.W.2 further opined that in the present mental status examination, the plaintiff's judgment, abstract thinking and insight are impaired and he cannot attend to the financial matters and attend the court cases.
7. However, the court below came to the conclusion that the proposed guardian Uppalamanthi Venkata Ramana Reddy cannot be appointed as the guardian to prosecute the suit of the plaintiff, since admittedly he is third party to the suit and he was the manager of the firm claimed to be owned by the original plaintiff. It is further observed that the present order does not debar him from figuring as a witness on behalf of the plaintiff in the suit. But however, since the plaintiff was found to be infirm and of unsound mind basing on the medical evidence and ExA-1 medical certificate and also from the answers given by the plaintiff to the questions put by the learned judge, and also taking into consideration the fact that the plaintiff stated that his wife was looking after his welfare, the court below held that it is proper to appoint the wife as guardian.
8. From the record it is clear that the court below conducted an elaborate enquiry and having examined the plaintiff in detail and having not been satisfied with the replies given by the plaintiff and also taking into the consideration the evidence of P.W.2 and Ex.A-1 medical certificate, the court below could come to the conclusion that the plaintiff was suffering from mental imbalance and infirmity of mind.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner - defendant while commenting upon the above issue, submitted that the court below is in error in taking into consideration Ex.A-1, which is only a certificate and it was further stated by P.W.2 that the said certificate was issued at the request of the relatives of the plaintiff and, therefore, the contents of Ex.A-1 certificate cannot be taken into consideration. I cannot agree with this submission for the reason that the contents of Ex.A-1 certificate were proved by examining P.W.2 and he confirmed the contents of Ex.A-1 and apart from this, the court below also examined the plaintiff by posing certain questions, it found that the questions put by the court were not satisfactorily answered. Further it is for the court the court to watch the demeanour of the plaintiff basing on the answers given by him to the questions posed by the court. The court below not only satisfied itself by putting certain questions but also took into consideration the evidence of P.W.2, the doctor who issued Ex.A-1, before coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff was of unsound mind and as can be seen from the impugned order, the court below followed the procedure contemplated under Order 32, Rule 15 C.P.C.
10. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision of this court reported in RAMI REDDY v. PAPPI REDDI (1), wherein this Court discussing the scope of Order 32, Rule 15 C.P.C., framed certain principles in order to assess the mental status of a person. In the said judgment, the learned single judge of this Court followed the judgment of the Madras High Court in BALAKRISHNAN v. BALACHANDRAN (2) wherein it was held as under:
11. The procedure involves a judicial inquiry which consists normally of two parts: (1) questioning the lunatic by the judge himself in open court, or in chambers, in order to see whether he is really a lunatic and of unsound mind, and (2) as the court is generally presided over only by a layman, to send the alleged lunatic to a doctor for report about his mental condition after keeping him under observation for some days ..........When this elementary precaution of a judicial inquiry prescribed by law is not observed, I am afraid that the laws of this court will not allow a man to be declared as a lunatic and a guardian appointed for him, on such basis.
12. From the above principle laid down by the Madras High Court it is clear that, first the court has to question the alleged lunatic in order to satisfy itself and nextly as by subjecting the person to a medical test by a doctor. In the instant case, it is apparent from the record that the court initially examined the plaintiff by posing certain questions in order to know his mental status and further it examined P.W.2, the doctor who issued Ex.A-1 medical certificate. From this it is clear that the court below, before coming to the conclusion regarding mental status of the plaintiff, had not only satisfied itself by posing certain questions, but also examined the doctor. Therefore, in my opinion, the court below, substantially complied with the principles laid down in the decision cited by the counsel for the petitioner 1 supra.
13. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent - plaintiff Sri P. Sridhar Reddy relied on a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in S.KRISHNAMURTHY v. S.SASILA (3). In the said judgment, dealing with a petition under Order 32, Rule 15 C.P.C., this court at paragraph No.9, observed as under:
14. A plain reading of this Rule leaves no doubt that the Court has to conduct an enquiry before permitting the next friend to institute the suit. But the method and manner in which the enquiry has to be conducted is not indicated in the Rule . . . . In the absence of any express provision in the Rule as to the nature of the enquiry that should be conducted, it is not possible to say that the procedure adopted by the trial court is not in conformity with the Rule. All that the said Rule contemplates is that the court should be prima facie satisfied that the plaintiff is of unsound mind. If the court is not satisfied with the averments in the petition, it may call upon the party to examine witnesses in support of the allegations. Even on the basis of affidavits, the court can form an opinion and come to the conclusion that it is a fit case for permitting the next friend to institute the suit. . . . In GOVINDAYYA v. RAMAMURTHY, AIR 1941 Madras 524 a Division Bench of the Madras High Court consisting of Venkataramana Rao and Horwill, J.J. summarized the scope of O.XXXII, R.15 and observed that the Rule does not contemplate that there must be a preliminary enquiry and a finding that a person, by reason of unsoundness of mind, was incapable of protecting his interests; and that all that is needed is that there should be some prima facie proof to satisfy the court that the person by reason of unsoundness of mind or mental infirmity, is incapable of protecting his interests, and that it is open to the defendant to take out an independent application to have the said order revoked. Their Lordships went to the extent of saying that when once the court permits the next friend to sue on behalf of such a person, it is not open to raise an independent issue in the trial as to competency of the next friend to represent him in the suit.
15. From the above decision it is clear that as there is no particular procedure prescribed under Order 32, Rule 15, the Court should prima facie satisfy that the plaintiff is of unsound mind before declaring him so and permitting the guardian to come on record.
In the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner referred to 1 supra, certain guidelines were laid in order to assess the mental status of a man for declaring him as of unsound mind. These guidelines were laid, because no specific procedure was contemplated under C.P.C. In my opinion there is no conflict between the decisions cited 1 and 3 supra. From a conjoint reading of both these judgments, it emanates that a reasonable enquiry should be conducted in order to assess the mental status of a man and to permit the guardian to come on record in order to protect the interest of the plaintiff.
16. In view of the above law laid down by this court in the decisions cited 1 and 3 supra, I am of the opinion that the court has conducted not only reasonable but an adequate enquiry in permitting the guardian to come on record. Therefore, no interference is warranted at the hands of this court under Section 115 C.P.C.
Accordingly, I pass the order as under:
Both the revision petitions are dismissed. No costs.